Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Raymond Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2 (3) , Mumbai

2015 (12) TMI 1237 - ITAT MUMBAI

Treatment of income under the head income from house property - Held that:- This issue has been decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal for assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002.

Disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D - Held that:- This issue is no more res integra as the applicability of Rule 8D has been held to be prospective from assessment year 2008-2009 by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 272 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has laid down the ratio that where the assessee, due to certain scheme, made premature payment of deferred sales-tax and on such payment entire liability to pay tax stood discharged, section 41(1) was not applicable. A similar view was taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sulzer India Ltd. (2012 (8) TMI 203 - ITAT MUMBAI). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Denial of deduction claimed u/s 35D - Held that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he expiry of the period in a scheme of demerger. There is no clause in the section which debars the assessee from claiming the expenses as a write off on sale of the undertaking. We, therefore, do not find any reason for declining the claim of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 7793 & 7794/Mum/2010 - Dated:- 28-10-2015 - N. K. Billaiya, AM And Amarjit Singh, JM For the Appellant : Shri Y P Trivedi For the Respondent : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap ORDER Per N. K. Billaiya ( AM ) Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment of income under the head income from house property. The assessee is aggrieved by the direction of the CIT(A) to determine the annual value of the property at 12% of the cost of land and building. At the very outset, the Counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that this issue has been decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the Tribunal vide a consolidated order dated 1st May, 2009 for assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. 3.1 We find that this issue has .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ate bench in assessee's own case (supra) ground no.1 is dismissed. 4. Ground no.2 with all its sub-grounds relate to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D. 4.1 This issue is no more res integra as the applicability of Rule 8D has been held to be prospective from assessment year 2008-2009 by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej & Boyce Ltd. Mfg. Co. v. DCIT [(2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom.)]. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of income at Notes forming part of the computation, the assessee has mentioned that sale-tax deferment loan u/s 38 of Bombay Sales-tax Act, of ₹ 1,19,14,723 has been repaid prematurely on net present value of ₹ 57,97,097 and ₹ 61,17,626 is credited to profit and loss account and the same has been treated as capital receipt. The assessee was asked to explain why the said receipt should not be treated as revenue receipt. The assessee explained that it has availed the benefit of p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be revenue receipt. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A), but without any success. 5.1 Before us, the Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is now squarely covered by the Decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Sulzer India Ltd. [(2012) 24 taxmann.com 24 (Mum.) (SB)] in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Counsel further pointed out that this issue is also decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in favour of the asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rnataka has laid down the ratio that where the assessee, due to certain scheme, made premature payment of deferred sales-tax and on such payment entire liability to pay tax stood discharged, section 41(1) was not applicable. A similar view was taken by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sulzer India Ltd. (supra). Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Special Bench, ground No.3 is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in financial year 2000-2001. The AO was of the firm belief that since the assessee does not have business on which such claim is asked, the same cannot be allowed. The AO accordingly denied the claim of deduction u/s 35D of the Act. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A), but without any success. 7.1 Before us the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the claim of deduction u/s 35D of the Act, in respect of Steel Division since assessment year 1996-97. It is the say of the C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xpenditure for each of the ten successive previous years beginning with the previous year in which the business commenced or as the case may be the previous year in which the extension of the undertaking is completed or the new unit commenced production or operation. The past history of the assessee was that there is no dispute insofar as the eligibility criteria of the assessee is concerned. The preliminary expenses were incurred by the assessee in assessment year 1996-97, which was the first y .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of 10 years to another Indian company in a scheme of amalgamation and section 35D(5A) refers to the transfer before the expiry of the period in a scheme of demerger. There is no clause in the section which debars the assessee from claiming the expenses as a write off on sale of the undertaking. We, therefore, do not find any reason for declining the claim of the assessee. 7.3 Let us consider this issue from another angle. The preliminary expenses were incurred in assessment year 1996-97 and as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version